ABSTRACT
Objectives To determine whether a panel of neonatal experts could address evidence gaps in neonatal guidelines by reaching a consensus on four clinical decision algorithms for a neonatal digital platform (NeoTree).
Design Two-round, modified Delphi technique.
Setting and participants Participants were neonatal experts from high-income and low-income countries (LICs).
Methods This was a consensus-generating study. In round one, experts rated items for four clinical algorithms (neonatal sepsis, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, respiratory distress of the newborn, hypothermia) and justified their responses. Items meeting consensus (≥80% agreement) were included. Items not meeting consensus were either excluded, included following revisions or included if they contained core elements of evidence-based guidelines. In round two, experts rated items from round one that did not reach consensus.
Results Fourteen experts participated in round one, ten in round two. Nine were from high-income countries, five from LICs. Experts included physicians and nurse practitioners with an average neonatal experience of 20 years, 12 in LICs. After two rounds, a consensus was reached on 43 of 84 items (52%). Experts consistently stated that items must be in line with local and WHO guidelines (irrespective of the level of supporting evidence or expert opinion). As a result, the final algorithms included 53 items (62%).
Conclusion Four algorithms in a neonatal digital platform were reviewed and refined by consensus expert opinion. Revisions to the NeoTree application were made in response to these findings and will be clinically validated in an imminent study.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
➢ In this study, a large number of algorithm items were reviewed and evaluated, and half met consensus for inclusion in the management pathways.
➢ The review was conducted with experts from a broad range of countries and neonatal experience who simultaneously refined the algorithms and highlighted gaps in current evidence, emphasising the need for future research to support international neonatal guidelines.
➢ Our study method meant that experts were not able to meet in person, which might have promoted dialogue that would have allowed greater clarity in their collective opinion.
➢ The representation of neonatal experts from LICs was not as robust as from high-income countries, which may have led to an uneven evaluation of the algorithms.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust Digital Innovation Award (215742/z19/z). FF is supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the funders of the Starter Grant for Clinical Lecturers scheme and the UCL Great Ormond Street NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was discussed with the University College London, research committee's board, but they advised ethics approval was not required because the study was not defined as research in the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research and therefore did not require NHS Research Ethics Committee Approval or approval from the Health Research Authority.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article, uploaded as supplementary information or available upon request from the corresponding author.
